Docket: IMM-6448-10
Citation:
2015 FC 413
Ottawa, Ontario, April 1, 2015
PRESENT: The
Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
MILAN LASAB,
MILADA LASABOVA, AND ELVIS KULASIC
|
|
Applicants
|
|
and
|
|
THE MINISTER OF
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
|
|
Respondent
|
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I.
Introduction
[1]
This judicial review concerns three individuals
whose refugee protection claims were denied by the Refugee Protection Division
[RPD] on the basis of adverse credibility findings and the existence of state
protection.
[2]
This case was argued together with IMM-5543-10
apparently because the state protection findings were similarly deficient in
both cases.
[3]
However, each case stands on its own merits and
must be assessed as such. This is not a class claim. With due respect to
counsel, each case deserved separate analysis and argument and one cannot be
allowed to piggyback on the other or undermine the strength of the other. The
fact that each case involved Romas living in the Czech Republic does not create
inextricable co‑mingling.
II.
Background
[4]
The Applicants are a family from the Czech
Republic. The female Applicant is a Roma and the minor shares partial Roma
ethnicity.
[5]
The male Applicant, Milan Lasab, did not face
any discrimination or violence until he met the female Applicant, who is
ethnically Roma. Lasab claimed they experienced racial insults, problems with
co‑workers, his own demotion, pay reduction and forced employment
relocation. He also claimed that they faced problems when shopping, and
ostracization when swimming. The female Applicant had a bottle smashed over her
head by a skinhead. Lastly, the claim included allegations that the son
suffered psychological and physical abuse at school.
[6]
In the RPD’s decision the Member noted a number
of serious discrepancies in the Applicants’ evidence when the oral testimony is
compared with the PIF and other available documents. For example, Milan Lasab
omitted mention of being disowned by his family, of his mother praying that the
relationship would end, and of his sister living with a skinhead.
[7]
While asserting that the minor Applicant was
verbally and physically assaulted at school, no mention of the assault was made
to immigration officers. Similarly, the assault by a skinhead and the breaking
of a bottle over the female Applicant’s head was not mentioned at the POE.
[8]
Further, the female Applicant claimed a number
of problems with police following the beer bottle incident, yet the PIF makes
no mention of these problems. She also failed to mention in her PIF that her
then boyfriend was roughed up by a “large racist man”.
[9]
While the Applicants attempted to explain the
discrepancies, the RPD did not accept the excuses. The RPD found the Applicants
lacked credibility and concluded that the incidents did not occur.
[10]
Further, the RPD found that the Applicants had
not rebutted the presumption of state protection. The Member referred to the
Czech Republic’s functioning democracy, its control of its territory, and its
Constitution (which prohibits discrimination). The RPD relied on current state
protection documentation. While recognizing that Roma were subject to
discrimination, the RPD noted that the Czech government was making “serious strides” to having this discrimination
overcome.
III.
Analysis
[11]
It is, by now, trite law that the RPD’s decision
on credibility and state protection is subject to the reasonableness standard
of review (Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190).
[12]
The weakest area of the RPD’s decision is its
examination of the operational adequacy of state protection. The subject of
state protection only becomes relevant if a claimant makes out a case that they
have been persecuted or were otherwise in need of protection, which protection
was not forthcoming from their home state.
[13]
The Applicants’ difficulty is that their story
was found not to be credible. The RPD’s conclusion on the credibility issue is
subject to considerable deference. Its finding is reasonable in all respects.
The discrepancies and omissions were major and the explanations offered by the
Applicants were weak. It was entirely within the RPD’s mandate to reject the
explanation.
[14]
Therefore, the Applicants having failed to
establish the events leading to the claim, the issue of state protection is
moot. Nevertheless, the RPD did consider state protection, considered the
Applicants’ submission and, as it had the right to do, favoured more recent
objective evidence in reaching its conclusion.
IV.
Conclusion
[15]
Therefore, this decision, read as a whole, is
reasonable. This judicial review will be dismissed. There is no question for
certification.
Email this Content